do you believe another 9/11 will happen?

Im interested to know if Americans believe 911 will happen again and if so are we just waiting for it or are we getting on with life and not worrying
about it?

Do you feel safer now than before 911 or just the same?

And finally do you feel that the added financial cost to taxpayers is good money spent or a waste. Should there be a limit to the measures taken by
the US government or should it be no holes barred in defence of the country.

Good question.. I woudl have to say that I would not be in theleast bit supprised if there were annother Terrorist atttack of an equal or lesser
magnitude.

Unfortunatly, I feel that we are at a greater risk of Terrorist attack becasue of Bush's policies. I think his first actions were the best, we went
into to Afganistan with the support of almost the entire world. With that support I think that global terrorism would have been somehting that the
world as a single entity could have untied against and though not compleatly removed ( Becasue the world will never be rid of terrorism) at least
lowered the percentage of Terrorst activity in England, Russia, Jappan... everywhere.

Should it be a no holds bared situation... I think you will find that any show of power should always be tempered with wisdom. Sadly this
administration has shown that it has none. I have no problem with raised taxes if that money was to be used well.. it is not.

As an American I am very dissapointed with how this entire situation has been handeled.

Im interested to know if Americans believe 911 will happen again and if so are we just waiting for it or are we getting on with life and not
worrying about it?

Yes it will happen again....not IF, but WHEN.
Getting on with our lives...as to not do so, would be to let them when.
I wouldn't say "worry", but we are more vigilant for things that aren't quite right....

Do you feel safer now than before 911 or just the same?

We've ALWAYS been at a risk of such an attack. I do feel safer though, as there are many holes that have been plugged, ones that allowed the
previous attack to occur. There are still holes, but there are less of them.

And finally do you feel that the added financial cost to taxpayers is good money spent or a waste. Should there be a limit to the measures
taken by the US government or should it be no holes barred in defence of the country.

The money spent is justified, it's the government's responsibility to protect it's people. The limit though, is when it directly interfere's with
the freedoms guaranteed to us (as citizens, not applying to non-citizens) by the Constitution.

My belief is another attack will happen and my worry is that it will be bigger than the first with large scale loss of life. The second worry is the
response from the US. Do you feel that current pro-active tactics are working abroad in particular?

absolutely....the amount of new terror groups which have sprung up (and continue to spring up) due to our presence in Iraq makes another large scale
attack a virtual given...

terrorists know the US public has a very short attention span...it's their ace in the hole....

nukes are inevitable....our politicians are too dumb, militaristically, to avoid rousing such an attack....

my hunch is the nukes will come later down the road, though...the next
series of attacks against the US will probally involve explosives like
the Madrid bombings....commuter trains, bridges, tunnels, etc.....

Originally posted by Munro_DreadGod
My belief is another attack will happen and my worry is that it will be bigger than the first with large scale loss of life. The second worry is the
response from the US. Do you feel that current pro-active tactics are working abroad in particular?

Oi! good questions... The pro-Active tactics could work with the proper support, we have elected to go into other countries without that support. I
think a good example would be if the IRA pulled off a major bombing in London I thin the world would generaly support England in going into Ireland to
remove those responcible. Now lets imagin that say.. PM Blair started to say thap Spain was funneling explosives from Morraco to members of the IRA.
There is no real proof of this other than vague historical connections between members of the Spanish parlarment and members of the governing councel
of Ireland. But because there is so much outrage PM Blair convices enough of Parlerment to pull troops out of Ireland and attack Madrid even though
half of Europe says that it is wrong.

So England attacks Madrid.. causing chaos in the area.

Granted, a good deal of IRA members have been caught.. do you think the average people of England would feel safer?

I know that Scotland is not England, but you are right there and have seen some of the IRA attacks if you are old enough.

Do you feel that current pro-active tactics are working abroad in particular?

No, in fact they are counter-productive. Taking a less pro-Isreal, and a more pro-peace stance would be productive, as would more international
involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan. Unfortunately, the Commander in Chief wasn't content to gain world support, and instead chose to alienate
them...and in doing so, has caused even more anti-US sentiment, and not just from our enemies, but even from long-time allies.....

Not to mention, by doing so, he set a dangerous precedent for OTHER nations claiming a pre-emptive reason to go after their neighbor....

Ireland is a total knightmare and im trying to get my head round your thinking. Firstly I am pro US on the subject and 100% behind blairs support as
to attacking spain if that is what it took to stop future attacks on the UK i would be in favour. The question on pro-active methods i'm trying to
link to the waiting for something to happen part of original post. Is it better to wait and be hit or go out and try to cut off funding, ammunition,
supplies in general and using your thinking would that mean Russia, NK, China as military suppliers to countries like Iran should be hit?

Originally posted by Munro_DreadGod
Ireland is a total knightmare and im trying to get my head round your thinking. Firstly I am pro US on the subject and 100% behind blairs support as
to attacking spain if that is what it took to stop future attacks on the UK i would be in favour. The question on pro-active methods i'm trying to
link to the waiting for something to happen part of original post. Is it better to wait and be hit or go out and try to cut off funding, ammunition,
supplies in general and using your thinking would that mean Russia, NK, China as military suppliers to countries like Iran should be hit?

Sure confused me there.

Sorry, all I am saying is that a pre-emptive strike is a very VERY sensitive position to take. I think that before any coutry goes into annother in
the name of Pro-active maesures you better have a stack of evidence agreed on by crap load of countries.

Since a large percentage of the US population is not yet convinced that we need another enemy to play war with, I think another horrific 'terrorist'
attack is imminent. At this point, the government still needs popular support for their games.

I'm not really worrying about it because there is nothing I can do prevent it. I'm enjoying it similar to the way I enjoy a good book. I only wish
it were in the fiction section.

I belive Americans in general should do anything and everything to defend their land. The big question here is how much of a gap there exists between
the interests of your average American (freedom, health, etc) and the interests of the government (power, money, etc) that is in place to represent
them.

Originally posted by Belgarath
Since a large percentage of the US population is not yet convinced that we need another enemy to play war with, I think another horrific 'terrorist'
attack is imminent. At this point, the government still needs popular support for their games.

I'm not really worrying about it because there is nothing I can do prevent it. I'm enjoying it similar to the way I enjoy a good book. I only wish
it were in the fiction section.

I belive Americans in general should do anything and everything to defend their land. The big question here is how much of a gap there exists between
the interests of your average American (freedom, health, etc) and the interests of the government (power, money, etc) that is in place to represent
them.

[edit on 7-9-2004 by Belgarath]

thats true. when it comes to war, whether for the good or bad, Americans need an excuse to go to war. this gives the government no choice BUT to
terrorize their own people.

.
I'm worried that when facts about the original 911 begin to surface, those who conspired to create it may feel the need to do something more horrific
to the American people as a smoke screen. That scares me. What are they going to do this time, launch a nuke?

If there really is a NWO in action I would think to preserve assets while eliminating people something like a biological agent might be used. That way
you don't destroy potentially valuable infrastructure.
.

There were at least five "Training Exercises" in progress on the morning of 9/11 2001. Each and every one, and any others we may not yet know of,
was under the control of our vice president Dick Cheney.

1 ) MILITARY EXERCISE NORTHERN VIGILANCE: Transferred most of the combat ready interceptors and possibly many AWACS from the north east into northen
Canada and Alaska. This explains,in part, why there were only eight ( 8 ) combat interceptors in the NE on 9/11.

2 ) NON-MILITARY BIOWARFARE EXERCISE TRIPOD II: FEMA arrived in NYC on 10 Sept 2001 to set up the command post for FEMA, NEW YORK CITY AND DEPARTMENT
OF JUSTICE on Manhattan's PIER 29. This shows our masters are loving, they made a strong effort to minimize the required deaths. This was probably
forced on them by the CFR, nice guys who must occasionally kill innocent people.

3 ) WARGAME EXERCISE, VIGILANT GUARDIAN: This exercise simulated hi-jacked planes in the northeast sector. The 9/11 commission made only mention of
this single exercise and lied about its purpose. The commisssion said its purpose was to intercept Russian bombers.

At the time of the real hi-jacking there were as many as 22 hi-jacked aircraft on NORAD's radar screen.

Some of these drills were "Live Fly" exercises were actual aircraft, likely flown by remote control were simulating hi-jacked aircraft. Some of the
drills electronically added the hi-jacked aircraft into the system. All this as the real hi-jackings began.

NORAD could not tell the difference between the seventeen bogus blips and the five actual hi-jacked aircraft blips. Cheney could.
-------------
I am sure there will be terror attacks before Nov 2, but not sure whether it will happen in Sept. or Oct.

Originally posted by marg6043
I agree with others here that it will be very unlikely that a terrorist attack in the scale of 9/11 will happened again.

What it worries me is an attack of the kind in Russia with suicide terrorist with nothing to lose but a lot to gain when it comes on targeting
children.

That type of attack will be horrible in these nation and the consequences to the American muslin community will be unprecedented their safety will be
shatter.

Indeed so. If there is a muslim terrorist attack on a US school or, for that matter, anywhere in the US that causes a major (more than 10 people now)
loss of life, I would expect to see mosques throughout the US being torched and some vigilante justice followed by a round-up of Moslems in the US to
be placed in the FEMA camps that are all around. It will be a matter of national security and a matter of Moslem personal security that will drive
their incarceration. We did that in WW2 with the Japanese-Americans. Some would argue it a mistake; sociology tells us it will happen again.

The Above Top Secret Web site is a wholly owned social content community of The Above Network, LLC.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.